December,

ing business under the firm name and style of H. Myers & Brothers, respectfully shows that Jonas Loeb, a resident of said county, is indebted to them in the sum of three hundred and seventysix 36-100 dollars; that said Loeb was doing business as a merchant in Bainbridge, Ga., for some time past, and on the 24th day of October, 1885, sold and delivered his stock of goods in his store in Bainbridge to one Henry Kaufman, which stock was liable for the payment of the debts of said Loeb, which sale of said stock was made for the purpose of avoiding the payment of said Loeb's debts; and that said Loeb conceals his property liable for the payment of his debts for the purpose of avoiding the payment of the same. Wherefore your petitioners pray for attachment against the property of said debtor, Jonas Loeb, liable 2 E. of F. P.-22

to attachment according to the laws of Georgia. H. Myers & Bros.,

by Henry Bendheim, agt., Henry Bendheim. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this Oct. 26th, 1885, by Henry Bendheim, as agent for said firm.

A. L. Townsend, N. P. & Ex-Off. J. P." Compare petition the substance of which is set out in Kennedy v. Wallace, 87 Ga. 724.

1. As to the actions in which an attachment may issue, see Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4302.

2. The affidavit may be made by the plaintiff or by some one on his behalf. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4303.

3. For the jurisdiction of the district court depending upon the amount in controversy, see Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 3830.

Volume II.

1. The affidavit must state that defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, specifying the amount of such indebtedness over and above all legal set-offs and counterclaims. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4303.

2. For the grounds of attachment, see Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4303.

If it is stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff has no security by mortgage, or a lien upon real or personal property, it is sufficient though the affidavit omits to state that the claim has not been secured by any pledge of personal property. Glidden v. Whittier, 46 Fed. Rep. 437.

If payment of the claim was originally secured by a mortgage or lien upon real or personal property, or by a pledge of personal property, that fact should be stated in the affidavit; and the affiant should also state that the security has, without any act of the plaintiff or of the person to whom the security was given, become valueless, and such statement should take the place of the denial of such security in the above affidavit. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4303.

Against a nonresident, the action must be upon any contract, express or implied. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4302. And the affidavit must state that the defendant is a nonresident of the state. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4303.

Against a resident, the action must be upon a contract, express or implied, for the direct payment of money, where the contract is not secured by any mortgage or lien upon real or personal property, or any pledge of personal property, or if originally so secured has, without any act of the plaintiff or the person to whom the security was given, become valueless. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4302.

3. The affidavit must state that the attachment is not sought and the action is not prosecuted to hinder, or delay, or defraud any creditor of the defendant. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4303.

4. An affidavit which purports to have been duly sworn to before a proper officer, and in the commencement of which the name of the affiant appears, is sufficient although the signature of the affiant does not appear thereon. Simmon Hardware Co. v. Alturas Commercial Co. (Idaho 1895), 39 Pac. Rep. 550.

5. For the form of the jurat generally, see the title AFFIDAVITS, vol. 1, pp. 560-570. As to what officers have authority to take and certify affidavits for attachment, see 3 ENCYC. OF PL. AND PR. 6, 7.

6. For the jurisdiction of probate court in civil matters depending upon the amount in controversy, see Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 3841.

State of Illinois, County of Cook.

SS.

1. An affidavit for issuance by a justice must show the same facts as are required to be shown in the affidavit for an attachment out of the district court. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4686. 2. For the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace depending upon the amount in controversy, see Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 3851.

Sections of the statute providing for attachments out of the district court except as otherwise expressly provided are applicable to attachments issued out of justices' courts, the necessary changes and substitutions being made therein. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4689.

The affidavit for attachment issued by a justice may be made by or on behalf of the plaintiff. Idaho Rev. Stat. (1887), § 4686.

3. A plea in abatement to the affidavit must deny every ground of attachment sufficiently stated in the affidavit. McFarland v. Člaypool, 128 Ill. 397. Amendments. —A motion to strike from the files an affidavit for attachment and the bond, for defects therein, and to quash the writ, is properly overruled where a sufficiently amended affidavit and bond were filed. Bailey v. Valley Nat. Bank, 127 Ill. 332.

An affidavit is usually amendable, where the names of the parties and the amount of the indebtedness are stated defectively, if some statutory ground for the issuance of the writ is properly stated. Kruse v. Wilson, 79 Ill. 233.

Attachment of Water Craft.-See Starr & Curt. Anno. Stat. Ill. (1896), pp. 476–486, pars. 1-46. For affidavits in this proceeding, see Ill. Rev. Stat., p. 185; Canal Boat Colonel Mulligan v. Buck, 55 Ill. 426.

Attachment in Aid.-For proceedings relating to attachment in aid of other proceedings, see Starr & Curt. Anno. Stat. Ill. (1896), pp. 464, 465, pars. 4143.

Writ Issued and Served on Sunday.— If it shall appear by the affidavit that the debtor is actually absconding or concealed, or stands in defiance of an officer duly authorized to arrest him on civil process as aforesaid, or has departed this state with the intention of having his effects and personal estate removed out of the state, or intends to depart with such intention, it shall be lawful for the clerk to issue, and the sheriff or other officer to serve, an attachment against such debtor on Sunday as on any other day. Starr & Curt. Anno. Stat. (Ill.), c. 11, par. 12, § 12. See Thomas v. Hinsdale, 78 Ill. 259, where a writ of attachment issued on Sunday by a justice of the peace was held void.

4. Compare the precedents in Rowley v. Berrian, 12 Ill. 199; Forsyth v. Warren, 62 Ill. 69.

5. Who may Make. The affidavit may be made by the creditor, his agent or attorney. Starr & Curt. Anno. Stat. Ill. (1896), c. II, par. 2.

In an affidavit made by an agent or

1897.

attorney, the affiant need not allege that he makes it in behalf of the plaintiff, and that he is his agent. Rutledge v. Stribling, 26 Ill. App. 353.

1. Statement of Indebtedness. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim and demand should be shown. Fisher v. Secrist, 48 Fed. Rep. 264.

An affidavit sufficiently describes the defendant's indebtedness which states that he is indebted in a certain sum for which he has given his note. Haywood v. McCrory, 33 Ill. 459.

Where the statute requires that the indebtedness shall be directly stated it is fatal to allege it by saying that the affiant is "informed and believes." Adams v. Merritt, 10 Ill. App. 275; Dyer v. Flint, 21 Ill. 80; Booth v. Rees, 26 Ill. 45; Archer v. Claflin, 31 Ill. 306; Winkler v. Barthel, 6 Ill. App. 111.

An affidavit which states that defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of two thousand four hundred dollars, damages and interest, upon covenants in the deed annexed thereto, does not sufficiently set forth the nature and amount of the indebtedness. Fisher v. Secrist, 48 Fed. Rep. 264.

When an affidavit stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars, for which he had given his note, it was held that this was a sufficient description of the nature of the indebtedness. Haywood v. McCrory, 33 Ill. 459.

2. Statement of Statutory Grounds. For the grounds of attachment in courts of record, see Starr & Curt. Anno. Stat. Ill. (1896), c. 11, par. 1, § 1.

If an affidavit for an attachment contains a good statement of any one of the grounds for the writ, this will be sufficient although another ground is stated which may not be well stated. Lawver v. Langhans, 85 Ill. 138.

of the law as he may deem expedient, but in doing so the several grounds should be stated cumulatively, and if any one of them be true it will sustain the attachment though all the others be untrue. Rosenheim v. Fifield, 12 Ill. App. 302; Lawver v. Langhans, 85 Ill. 138. An allegation in the alternative is not sufficient. Prins v. Hinchliff, 17 Ill. App. 153.

The plaintiff may allege as many grounds of attachment within the terms

The act complained of must be injurious to the attaching creditor, though it is sufficient if the affidavit charges, in the language of the statute, that it operated to delay and hinder creditors. Keith v. McDonald, 31 Ill. App. 17. It is not necessary to state that the acts complained of were injurious to the particular attaching creditor. Zeigler v. Cox, 63 Ill. 48.

3. Statement as to Defendant's Residence. The affidavit must state the place of residence of the defendant if known, and if not known, that upon diligent inquiry affiant has not been able to ascertain the same. Starr & Curt. Anno. Stat. Ill. (1896), c. 11, par. 2.

An affidavit setting forth that the residence of the debtor, two years before the making thereof, was at a place from which he had departed, is no evi, dence that his residence was there at the time the affidavit was made. Baldwin v. Ferguson, 35 Ill. App. 393.

An affidavit which gives the names of the parties, and the amount of the indebtedness, and which states that the defendant conceals nimself, and that plaintiff does not know his whereabouts, though defective in failing to state the nature of the indebtedness, the place of residence of the defendant, or that such place was unknown to the plaintiff or could not upon diligent inquiry be learned, is not void but only voidable, and gives the court jurisdiction of the subject-matter in attachment. Hogue v. Corbit, 156 Ill. 540. 4. Jurat. The affidavit confers juris